DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 372 558 EC 303 190

AUTHOR Shriner, James G.; And Others

TITLE State Special Education Outcomes, 1993: A Report on

State Activities in the Assessment of Educkitional

Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.

INSTITUTION National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, Alexandria, VA.; National Center on

Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.; Saint Cloud

State Univ., MN.

SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,

DC.

PUB DATE Mar 94

CONTRACT H159C00004

NOTE 107p.; For previous reports, see ED 348 805 and ED

363 044.

AVAILABLE FROM Publications Office, National Center on Educational

Outcomes, University of Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall,

75 East River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455 ($15).

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Statistical

Data (110)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Data Collection; *Disabilities; Dropouts;

*Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary

Education; High School Graduates; High Schools;

National Surveys; Needs Assessment; *Outcomes of

Education; State Programs; *State Standards; Student

Educational Objectives; Student Participation;

Student Placement

ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of the third

national ,.irvey of state activities in the assessment of educational

outcomes for students with disabilities. The report does not contain

actual outcomes data on students with disabilities. Twenty-three

tables present data on: number of students in general education and

special education in each state; types of participation and exit data

collected; state assessments of outcomes; inclusion of students with

disabilities in data collection; barriers to outcome assessment and

state needs for outcomes assessment, state practices, programs, and

plans; and nontraditional state assessments. For each state, text

sections descriLe activities in selected outcomes areas, including

academic achievement, post-school status, vocational skills,

functional living, and attitudes and aspirations. Findings indicate

that, while states continue to focus on participation and exit data . for students with disabilities, the following trends include: states

are attempting to produce better information on the numbers of

students with disabilities taking part in statewide assessments;

guidelines on acceptable testing accommodations and adaptations are being advanced by state assessment p/ograms; and states implementing

nontraditional forms of assessment seem to retain the same approach

to including students with disabilities and making accommodations as in their traditional assessments. (JDD)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Othce of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

Es'<is document has been reproduced as

received from the person of organization

originating it

P Minor changes have been made to imorove

reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu merit do not necessarily represent official

OE RI position or policy

diiDt `i\IrV; : , I s, t.gi -`J ,

' , 1,6 s' .A

4,t Z11.11-;.

, ' L "

, 73 7-

," t n . ' . .7' i '

.!,71

-.: ' . , -

, . . ,......1. . t. -, ,

,

'

n

1.1

' 1

,, .

'

., / ' .-,

.1, ' . S- 1 ' ' ' 1 . /

, J, , / . if,/ r * ,:t

.# , # f ,

.1 . s,.: " Pr i '

. ,s, , ,

7

, N 4.6 1 4,4

,1

4.,/v

s.

i: - .,-; ..,1;:o.' :- . . ,, ,,,....,, ...

- r I

..'. i .. 7. ' "tiN_ . ,

., , V 'i , , ;' ,,,,.. '':', .'',

, ,

, ' , *, \ ,N. a

. 1

.. . 1 -

'

,r - V

4
State

Special Education

Outcomes

0

National Center

on Educational Outcomes

College of Education

University of Minnesota

in collaboration with

St. Cloud State University and

National Association of State

Directors of Special Education

Supported by the

Office of Special Education Programs

US. Department of Education

" ' ' ,

, "$:$ s).' S ,$0" ," , z."; -5- - ; , )

, s

,

Ce 4.':IzePortwons:

>

, 5 ,

, Slide Actwittes m

the Assessment o

Educational Outcomes

or Students with

* 41, Difiabatties

St

?

,
March 1994

NCEO Core Staff:

Robert H. Bruininks

Ronald N. Erickson

Patricia J. Grafstrom

Kevin S. McGrew

Dorene L. Scott

James G. Shriner

Gail E. Spande

Martha L Thurlow,

assistant director

James E. Ysseldyke,

director

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) was

established in October, 1990 to

work with state departments of

education, national policymaking groups, and others to

facilitate and enrich the development and use of indicators of

educational outcomes for

students with disabilities. It is

believed that responsible use of

such indicators will enable

students with disabilities to

achieve better results from their

educational experiences. The

Center represents a collaborative

effort of the University of

Minnesota, the National

Association of State Directors of

Special Education, and St. Cloud

State University.

The Center is supported through

a cooperative agreement with the

US. Department of Education,

Office of Special Education

Programs (H159C000e4).

Opinions or points of view do

not necessarily represent those of

the U.S. Department of Education

or Offices within it.

A644100444e4oftftw

-;'

ri#0#019AkciOii,e'' Si'
Acknowledgments

Many people provided input on

both the content and format of

this updated survey. NCEO

especially expresses its appreciation to those individuals who

spent many hours reviewing and

updating data.

Special recognition and thanks

go to:

Office of Special

Education Programs,

U.S. Department of Education:

Lou Danielson

Report Update:

Trish Grafstrom

The 1993 version of this report was

prepared by lames G. Shriner, Gail

E. Spande, and Martha L. Thurlow.
State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA KANSAS NEW YORK

Bill East Betty Weithers Tom Neveldine WEST VIRGINIA

Nancy Johnson

ALASKA KENTUCKY NORTH CAROLINA

Myra Howe Kenneth War lick Lowell Harris WISCONSIN

Juanita Pawlisch

ARIZONA LOUISIANA NORTH DAKOTA

Kathryn Lund Leon Borne Gary Gronberg WYOMING

Margie Simineo

ARKANSAS MAINE OHIO

Diane Sydoriak David Stockford John Herner

CALIFORNIA MARYLAND OKLAHOMA AMERICAN SAMOA

Leo Sandoval Richard Steinke John Corpolongc .Jane French

COLORADO MASSACHUSETTS OREGON BUREAU OF INDIAN

Fred Smokoski Pamela Kaufmann Karen Brazeau AFFAIRS

Lena Mills

CONNECTICUT MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA

Torn Gil lung Richard Baldwin Cheryl Keenan DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

DELAWARE MINNESOTA RHODE ISLAND Lila Vanderhorst

Martha Brooks Wayne Erickson Robert Pryhoda

GUAM

FLORIDA MISSISSIPPI SOUTH CAROLINA Steven Spencer

Bettye Weir Carolyn Black Ora Spann

MARIANA ISLANDS

GEORGIA MISSOURI SOUTH DAKOTA Bartara Rudy

Joan Jordan John Heskitt Deborah Barnett

MARSHALL ISLANDS

HAWAII MONTANA TENNESSEE Kanchi Hosia

Margaret Donovan Robert Runkel Joe Fisher

PALAU

IDAHO NEBRASKA TOCAS Peter Elechuus

Fred Balcom Gary Sherman ill Gray

PUERTO RICO

ILLINOIS NEVADA UTAH Adela Costa

Gail Lieberman Gloria Dopf Steve Kukic

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

INDIANA NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT Priscilla Stridiron

Paul Asn Robert Kennedy Dennis Kane

IOWA NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA

These were the state directors of

special education in October 1993

when the survey was conducted.

Frank Vance Jeffery Osowski Austin Tuning

NEW MEXICO WASHINGTON

Linda Witson 6 Douglas Gill
Executive Summary

This report presents the results of

the third national survey of state

activities in the assessment of

educational outcomes for students with disabilities. NCEO

mailed a separate copy of the

1992 report to state directors of

special education in the fifty

states and nine unique states

receiving special education funds

(e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam).

Respondents were asked to mark

directly on the copy any changes

in their state's information. The

survey results include the following areas:

III federally-reported data

assessments of outcomes

III inclusion of students with

disabilities in state assessments

state needs

practices, programs, and plans

related to outcomes

nontraditional assessments

state activities in selected

outcomes areas.

In addition, a questionnaire on

the participation of students with

disabilities in nontraditional,

performance-based assessments

was sent to selected state assessment personnel.

indings

New trends emerge LI several aspects of the information from

states. While states continue to focus on participation and exit

data for students with disabilities, the following trends are

evident:

States are attempting to produce better information on the

numbers of students with disabilities taking part in statewide assessments.

More attention is being directed toward guidelines that help

define who participates in statewide assessments, with the

apparent goal of increasing the number of students who

participate.

Guidelines on acceptable testing accommodations and

adaptations are being advanced by state assessmentprograms. The trend is to allow more kinds of modifications, in

both low and high stakes assessments.

States implementing nontraditional forms of assessment

seem to retain the same approach to including students with

disabilities and making accommodations as in their traditional assessments.

This report does not contain actual outcomes data on students with

disabilities. Several states have provided NCEO with their data, but

the variability in measures, grades assessed, and content areas

combined with the small number of states make it impossible to

integrate the data meaningfully. An NCEO report on the state data

aggregation efforts is being prepared.
Table of Contents

Introduction 1

State Contexts 3

Table 1 - Students Ages 5-17 4

Figure 1 - Students Ages 3-21 6

Federally-Reported Data 7

Table 2 - Participation Rates 8

Table 3 - Exit Data Extensions 9

Table 4 - Uses of Participation and Exit Data 10

State Assessments of Outcomes 11

Figure 2 - Outcomes Assessment Activities 13

Table 5 - Participation in General Education Assessments . . . . 15

Table 6 - Achievement Data 16

Table 7 - Vocational Skills Assessed 18

Table 8 - Post-School Status 19

Table 9 - Uses of Achievement and Post-School Status Data 20

Table 10 - Uses of Vocational Skills Data 22

Figure 3 - Regular States' Use of Collected Data 23

Figure 4 - Types of Achievement Assessments 26

Figure 5 - Tests Used for Reading and Math 27

Table 11 - States Assessing Reading and Math 28

Including Students with Disabilities 31

Figure 6 - Alternative Assessments 33

Figure 7 - Alternative Achievement Assessments 34

Figure 8 - States with Accessible Achievement Data 35

Table 12 - Estimated Participation 36

Table 13 - Decision Rules for Inclusion 38

Table 14 - Decision Makers for Inclusion 40

Figure 9 - States with Rules for Inclusion 42

Figure 10 - States with Accommodation Guidelines 43

Table 15 - Testing Accommodations Allowed by States 44

State Needs 47

Table 16 - Barriers to Outcomes Assessment 48

Table 17 - State Needs for Outcomes Assessment 50

Practices, Programs, and Plans 53

Table 18 - State Practices, Programs, and Plans 54

Nontraditional State Assessments 57

Table 19 - Current Areas Assessed 59

Table 20 - Types of Nontraditional Items 60

Table 21 - Participation Rates 61

Table 22 - Types of Accommodations/Adaptations 62

Table 23 - Reporting Results 63

State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas 65
Introduction

NCEO produced the first report

on state special education outcomes for 1991. Since then, states

have been engaged in many

activities, and much has happened in the areas of educational

accountability and outcomes.

Because of the rapid changes

taking place overall and within

spedal education, documenting

current practice related to special

education outcomes continues to

be important and the reason for

producing State Special Education Outcomes 1993.

The first two reports highlighted

outcomes accountability. They

noted that

states were being pushed to

look at the outcomes achieved by

students within their educational

systems

there was a dear press for

policy-relevant information

about the performance of students in our educational system

information on the outcomes of

students with disabilities was

needed as well.

Many national data bases are

unable to provide adequate data

because students with disabilities

are excluded. Discussions now

take place on how to develop

more inclusive guidelines for

participation in national assessment programs. Although still

small, the amount of national

data on students with disabilities

is increasing. This is true at the

state level as well.

States provide the Office of

Special Education Programs with

important information on the

input, context, and process of

special education, but little

information on outcomes (other

than graduation, dropout, and

other school completion information). But states are continuing to

think about and beginning to use

student performance outcomes in

their special education programs,

as evidenced in this report.

NCEO's Purpose

NCEO is a collaborative effort of

the National Association of State

Directors of Special Education

(NASDSE), the University of

Minnesota and Saint Cloud State

University. Part of the Center's

mission is to provide national

leadership in identifying educational outcomes for students with

disabilities and in developing

possible indicators that could be

used to monitor those important

outcomes.

The Center works with national

policymaking groups, state

departments of education, and

other groups and individuals to

promote national discussion of

educational goals and indicators

that include students with disabilities. To accomplish this,

NCEO has four major goals:

Goal 1 To promote the development of a system of indicators

for use with all students including those with disabilities.

9

Goal 2 To support and enhance

the measurement of educational outcomes and indicators

for students with disabilities.

Goal 3 To enhance the availability and use of outcomes information in decision making at

the federal and state levels.

Goal 4 To identify and develop

indicators that can be used to

make judgments about the

extent to which education

works for students with disabilities, and that can be used

to improve programs and

services.

Many activities are underway to

accomplish these goals. Besides

the state survey, the Center

examines and analyzes existing

national and state data that may

provide information on outcomes

for students with disabilities. It

works with other groups and

organizations (e.g., National

Center for Education Statistics) to

address issues related to assessment efforts already underway.

And it is developing and refining

a conceptual model of outcomes

and indicators by working with

state and national agencies,

parents and professionals.

About the State Survey

This third annual state survey

addresses the need for state

directors, policymakers and

others to collect information on

state activities in multiple

outcomes areas and to make

1
Introduction

changes in accountability and

assessment acti-ities. This is

important because local, state

and national groups are proposing new initiatives and forecasting changes that may have

significant impact on the education of students with disabilities.

The 1993 survey was completed

by having state directors of

special education or their designees mark changes to their state's

information on a copy of the 1992

state report.

States were informed that it

would be assumed the information was correct if a response was

not received. As in the past, the

survey objectives were to:

create an ongoing tracking

system to describe the status of

state activities for assessing

educational outcomes

develop a monitoring system

of the procedures and practices

used by states when making

accommodations in assessing

students with disabilities

identify what persistent barriers and needs states have related

to outcomes assessment

find state data bases that might

be used to create a national data

base of outcomes for students

with disabilities.

The target group included state

directors of special education in

the fifty states plus in those

unique states referred to in this

report (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam).

In addition, for the 1993 report,

NCEO contacted state assessment

personnel in those states that had

indicated on a survey conducted

by the North Central Regional

Education Laboratory (NCREL)

that nontraditional items were

being used in their statewide

assessments. Included in the

survey were questions about

participation of students with

disabilities and adaptations

allowed for students with disabilities, and how data are reported.

Of the 59 surveys sent to state

directors of special education,

responses were received from 23

regular states and 2 unique

states. Of the 30 surveys sent to

state assessment personnel, 21

were returred.

"Outcomes" Defined

The term "outcomes" has many

definitions in current educational

literature. A common meaning

describes outcomes as including

"knowledge, skills, and attitudes." Outcomes are considered

most often to cover all areas of

student development, rather than

just student status at the end of

schooling. For purposes of the

state survey, the following

definition was used:

Outcome = the result of interactions between individuals and

educational experiences.

Overview of State Report

Data in this document summarize the responses of state

1 0

directors and assessment personnel. The reader must be cautioned that states have developed

their own procedures, policies,

and cvstems that are not easily

reprented in a quantitative

format.

Next Steps 1994

Instead of updating the state

survey in 1994, new questions

will be asked about state responses to reform legislation and

the implications for their assessments of outcomes for students

with disabilities. Then in 1995,

both the information presented in

this repot and the information in

the 1994 report will be updated.

Nine Unique State /

American Samoa = Am Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs = BIA

District of Columbia = DC

Guam

Mariana Islands = CNMI

Marshall Islands = RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands = USVI

2
State Contexts

Student Population Receiving Special tducaiion

Table I

The numbers of special education

students vary in relation to the

general education student population. Table 1 shows the general

education student population

and the percentage of all students

ages 5 to 17 years served in

special education.

Figure 1

State special education student

populations vary. Figute1 shows

states according to the numbet- of

students ages 3 to 21 years served

in special education. States are

divided into three groups according to the number of special

education students served: those

having less than 50,000, those

with 50,000 to 100,000, and those

with mbre than 100,000 students.

3

Nationally, special education

reported serving approximately

140,000 more children in 1992 than

in 1991. The number of special

education students in many states

reflects this trend.

4.,

I.- *k

;

f I 11
State Contexts Table 1 Student Population Receiving Special Education

Student Populations Ages 5-17

State

General

Education

Special

Education

% Special

Education

Alabama 726,115 88,632 12.21

Alaska 115,277 14,019 12.16

Arizona 673,801 54,726 8.12

Arkansas 437,616 42,784 9.78

California 5,140,000 449,279 8.74

Colorado 593,030 54,092 9.12

Connecticut 478,300 58,719 12.28

Delaware 101,543 12,952 12.76

Florida 1,932,293 234,901 12.16

Georgia 1,177,324 99,614 8.46

Hawaii 174,249 12,633 7.25

Idaho 225,680 20,033 8.88

Illinois 1,851,000 220,046 11.89

Indiana 958,240 107,928 11.26

Iowa 491,363 54,849 11.16

Kansas 445,774 42,249 9.4Z

Kentucky 634,200 71,652 11.30

Louisiana 695,379 69,207 9.95

Maine 216,887 25,033 11.54

Maryland 736,238 81,976 11.13

Massachusetts 841,785 134,749 16.01

Michigan 1,587,082 151,470 9.54

Minnesota 775,567 72,475 9.34

Mississippi 501,525 56,792 11.32

Missouri 822,593 96,883 11.78

12

4
State Spedal Education Outcomes 1993

State

General

Education

Special

Education

% Special

Education

Montana 153,075 16,152 10.55

Nebraska 277,652 32,229 11.61

Nevada 211,810 18,383 8.68

New Hampshire 173,881 18,418 10.59

New Jersey 1,109,604 168,281 15.17

New Mexico 297,006 35,143 11.83

New York 2,645,000 282,193 10.67

North Carolina 1,092,447 117,226 10.73

North Dakota 117,719 11,193 9.51

Ohio 1,758,071 193,715 11.02

Oldahoma 579,200 62,871 10.85

Oregon 498,608 51,332 10.30

Pennsylvania 1,667,087 187,148 11.23

Rhode Island 140,915 19,061 13.53

South Carolina 627,471 72,666 11.58

South Dakota 131,576 13,317 10.12

Tennessee 832,330 100,526 12.08

Texas 3,435,749 328,840 9.57

Utah 454,218 45,050 9.92

Vermont 96,802 9,789 10.11

Virginia 1,016,017 108,911 10.72

Washington 868,551 79,634 9.17

West Virginia 320,249 39,490 12.33

Wisconsin 821,550 79,676 9.70

Wyoming 99,330 10,179 10.25

Numbers for 1991-92 for general education derived from Table AFB and for special education from Table AA5 (ages 6-17) + Table AA16 ( ages 5-17) (a formula yielding comparable results to thoee published in previous reports) published in the Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress (US. Department of Education, 1993).

5
State Contexts Figure 1 Student Population Receiving Special Education

Student Populations Ages 3 - 21

6
Federally-Reported Data

Special Educatio.9416rticipation and Exit Data

Table 2

When states collect student

participation information beyond

that required in reports to the

federal government, they often

account for each student's time in

general or special education

classes. Twenty-six of the regular

states and one unique state have

more detailed accounts of student time. Seventeen regular

states have other types of extensions of required data (e.g., hours

of service by provider, attendance data, suspension/expulsion information, extracurricular

activities, or other data such as

time spent out of general education). The number of states

reporting extended participation

data collection in 1993 is about

the same as in 1992.

Table 3

Most states collecting information beyond the required exit

data know more about the

circumstances surrounding

students leaving school. The

most frequently cited reasons are

to evaluate graduation and

dropout rates, and assess trends.

In addition, fourteen states that

award multiple diploma types

keep track of these at the state

level for special education

students. Data on reasons for

student dropout are also

collected by fourteen states.

Uses Of Data

Table 4

Almost all states that collect extra

participation and exit data use

the data in reports for state

agencies, legislatures, and local

and state education agencies

(LEAs and SEAs). Data are also

used for accountability and

program evaluation. Other uses

of participation and exit data

include in6,vidual school report

cards and fund distribution.

Participation and exit data

continue to be a major part of

states' data collection efforts, and

show potential usefulness for

purposes other than federal and

state reporting.

7

1'

Currently, the Office of Special

Education Programs (OSEP)

requires states to report annually on

student participation and exit data.

Participation information includes

counts of the numbers of students in

various special education categorit

and placements by grade and/or age.

Exit information includes counts of

the numbers of students who exit

school by graduating, dropping out,

earning completion certificates, etc.

Some states collect information that

exceeds these OSEP requirements.

Twenty-six regular states and one

unique state have state-wide collection of extra participation information. Twenty-eight regular states

and no unique states have state-wide

collection of exit information beyond

that required by OSEP.
Federal! -Re orted Data Table 2 Partici ation Rates

Participation Rate Extensions

STATE

gtr

tz5c. <et California

Colorado

Connecticut

0

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Kansas

Kentucky

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

tkegon

South Dakota

Texas

Utah . Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

CNMI e

. 1 7

8

1
Federally-Reported Data Table 3 Exit Data Extensions

Exit Data Ektensions

STATE

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maryland

Massachusetts

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wyoming

-

9
Federally-Reported Data Table 4Participation and Exit Data Uses of Participation and Exit Data toeyond OSEP Requirements

/4

o 1i'"*

Is

14, let-&.ckS4PR.I-.&1

/ce STATE Participation Exii Alaska

11

111 Calii Tnia

1se.

j

1

11

1 Colorado V

11

j1

1 Connecticut of st Delaware

/se' Florida

I Georgia Hawaii

11

1 Iowa Kansas

1

1

1 Kentucky 1

/of /

1

11/4/ Maryland 11

11

11

1

11111

1 Massachusetts

1se/

i1 Michigan 1

11 Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire 1

1

1

1 New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina

1

1 Ohio

1

1 Oregon 1

1le1

1,-/ 1l11 Rhode Island I

1 South Dakota /

/

// Texas

Vif1 Utah

11

1i1

11

1 Vermont 1

1I

1i1

i Virginia

/1

1

/111

1 West Virginia i

111

11 Wisconsin 1

1

Womin: 1 10
State Assessments of Outcomes

Outcome Areas and Assessors

Figure 2

The primary outcome areas

covered by state assessment

activities are achievement,

vocational skills, and post-school

status. States that collect information in these areas are shown in

the maps in Figure 2. These

assessment activities sometimes

reflect a general education effort,

a special education effort, or a

combination of general education

and special education. Overall,

collecting achievement data at

the state level (meaning students

with disabilities are included)

ranks high with forty-four regular states and all of the unique

states.

Under vocational skills, assessments indude only in-school

vocational. Post-school vocational skills assessment is captured in the post-school status

category.

Table 5

This year's survey of states

indicates that forty-four of the

regular states and all of the

unique states collect state level

achievement data that indude

students with disabilities. As

shown in Table 5, most of this

activity is conducted by general

education (thirty regular states

and five unique states). Assessment of in-school vocational

skills occurs in thirteen regular

states and three unique states. In

eight of the regular states and

two of the unique states, both

general and special education

collect data. Information on the

post-school status experiences of

former special education students is collected in twenty-one

reguirs states and three unique

states, mostly through special

education.

Table 6

Forty-four states collect achievement data. Nearly twice as many

states collect information in the

areas of reading, math, and

Language arts than in science,

social studies, and other areas

(e.g., humanities, employability).

Table 7

Table 7 identifies thirteen regular

states and three unique states

that collect vocational skills

information. Enrollment in

vocational education and job

placement are the most frequently collected data, although

almost as many states collect data

km type of vocational program

and employment during the

school years. Other categories

mentioned by states include

student and parent satisfaction,

quality of life, and summer jobs.

11

)

Assessment activities in a state may

be directed by different groups. For

descriptive purposes, the "assessor"

is defined as the primary unit or

department responsible for data

collection. In this report, the assessor

is categorized as general education,

special education, or both. Vocational education and state assessment units are considered to be part

of general education.
State Assessments of Outcomes

Table 8

All of the twenty-one regular

states and four unique states that

collect post-school status data

report on the employment status

of students with disabilities. Of

those, more than two thirds also

report on students' wages.

Information on enrollment in

school of special education

students is collected by twenty of

the twenty-one states that collect

post-school status data. Other

categories of: data collection

identified by states include

personal adjustment, marital

status, community involvement,

ability to access services, and

friendships.

Uses of Data

Table 9

Information on outcomes are

used for a variety of purposes by

either special education or general assessment personnel. This

table illustrates that most states

use collected information for

more than one purpose. Achievement data are used most frequently for reports to local school

districts and state agencies, but

are also used often for accountability, program evaluation, and

reports to parents. Post-school

status information, when used, is

most often for evaluating programs and reporting to various

groups (e.g., state legislature,

local school districts, etc.). Other

uses identified by a few states

include accountability, program

improvement, and reports to

other groups, such as the state

Developmental Disabilities

Council.

Table 10

Vocational data are used for

fewer purposes overall. Most

states that collect these data use

them for program evaluations

and reports to local education

agencies. The "other" category

includes long-range planning

and reports for other state units,

such as the Department of Labor.

Figure 3

Figure 3 provides a general

summary of the primary uses of

different types of data. The most

obvious comparison is that

required data (participation and

exit) and achievement data are

used most often to produce

reports for the Office of Special

Education Programs and other

constituencies. Achievement

data, and to some extent postschool status data, are used for

program evaluation and

accountability.

Assessment of Basic Skills

Figure 4

States are using many different

kinds of instruments to assess

achievement. Most common are

norm-referenced tests used in

thirty regular states and five

unique states overall. When

examining states that have

accessible data on students with

disabilities, twenty-five regular

states and three unique states

report a high use of norm-referenced tests. Important, but not

directly evident here, is the

general shift away from the use

of norm-referenced devices

toward the use of instruments

21

developet, specifically by or for a

state's education agency and

reflecting the state's curricular

emphases. So far, two regular

states report using portfolio

assessments.

Figure 5

To determine whether states

have specific test data that could

be used to form a common data

pool, it is necessary to look at

specific instruments that are

employed. Of the norm-referenced instruments utilized most

often, no single test is used by

more than a handful of states,

regardless of whether they have

accessible data on students with

disabilities. It is unlikely that

data from different states would

be merged unless first translated

to a standard measurement unit.

Then, it may be possible to

produce common data on the

achievement of special education

students.

Table 11

This table identifies the reading

and math norm-referenced tests

used by states that include

students with disabilities in their

assessments. Most frequently

used is the Stanford Achievement

Test. Nine states use more than

one norm-referenced test for

reading and math assessment.

The "other" category refers to

specific norm-referenced state

assessment measures that were

identified by certain states (e.g.,

Kentucky Instructional Results

Information System, Normreferenced Assessment Program

for Texas, etc.).

12
State A7sessments of Outcomes Figure 2 Outcomes Assessment Activities

Achievement and Vocational Skills

t=ici

ACHIEVEMENT

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

Shaded states collect state-level information

VOCATIONAL SKILLS

2 (I4

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

MD

Am Samoa

B1A

CNMI

DC

Guam

Eg Palau

PR

RMI

USVI

Am Samoa

BIA

CNM1

Ej De El Guam

El Palau E PR

RM1

El USVI

13
State Assessments of Outcomes Figure 2 Outcomes Assessment Activities

Post-School Status

a HI

govb

POST-SCHOOL STATUS

AK

Shaded states collect state-level information

23

El Am Samoa

0 BIA

0 CNM1

0 DC

Guam

Palau

0 PR

RMI

0 USVI

14
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 5 Participation in General Education

Participation in General, Education Assessments

STATE

S%. A

o4 if r

4, e

v STATE

.0.

044. _40

,14 NY 4..si° e0

.90V *er

Alabama New Mexico .., Alaska

Arizona

New York

North Carolina

Arkansas North Dakota ME

California Ohio

Colorado Oklahoma , Connecticut

t Delaware , Florida

Oregon 11111111111

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Georgia South Carolina

Hawaii South Dakota

Idaho Tennessee e . Illinois Texas

Utah

Vermont

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Virginia

Washington

West Vir ia

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Michigan ,' Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Minnesota

Mississippi .. Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Guam ,

CNMI

; u 11111111

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI mmil I Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

MIIII

24

General

Education

Spada!

Education

Combined

15
c State Assessments of Outcomes Table 6 Achieveniel4

Achieyement Data for Reading, Math, Language, Science and Social. Studies

STATE

C

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona .

-.

1 i 0-

Arkansas

California .

. .r

Connecticut .;

Delaware

, if , Florida 1

I,

,

1 Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho ! Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

, Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi 5

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey . New Mexico

16
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

STATE

csb

rt,

477

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

, Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon t

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

, Tennessee

Texas , Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Am Samoa

BIA

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau L

Puerto Rico

USVI

26

17
State Assessments of °LI-comes Table 7 E Vocational Skills

Vocational Skills Areas Assessed

Employment During Type of

School Years Vocational Program

Delaware

Maryland

New Mexico

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

DC

Guam

Enrollment in

Vocational Education

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Lothsiana

Maryland

Missouri

Ohio

Oregon

a South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

DC

Delaware

Florida -

Georgia

a Kentucky

Maryland

Missouri

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virgima

Job Placement

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Maryland

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

DC

Guam

Palau

Other

27

New Mexico

Ohio

a Oregon

Vermont

West Virginia
State Assessments of Outcomes Table 8 u Post-School Status

Emplbyment Status, Wages, Enrollment in School, Living Arrángements

STATE

a)"

Arizona

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Kentucky

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Iiginia . DC 5

Guam

RMI

Palau

28

19
State Assessments ofOutcomes II Table 91 Uses of Data

Uses'of Achievement and Post-Skhool Status Dat4.

t- es o

<;e1 4i) 4

s." a- a- k- e 4t, P e

I. 6, ..) t. ,,,,... , i i

%,g e i 4 4, e. , s ,- ,

O 0- R (? I P G' 4-v ...,1 4.." K" x --, .4. -. s-, -%. .... ---, -.. c STATE Achievement Post-School Status

Alabama 11 //I / li

Alaska ce. / III / / 1

Arizona 1 4/ of 1 1

Arkansas 1 /

California / I It / I,I 1 1

Connecticut 1 i 1 / le se i /

Delaware 1 / se I If i i I

Florida I 1 1 / 1 1 i / I /

Georgia / I/ i of le 11, / I

Hawaii / 1 / / 1 1 It

Idaho / / sI 1 i

Illinois if Sr i i i

Indiana It of 1 / / of 1 / i

Iowa 1 1

Kansas 1 / If / / i

Kentucky -I 1 1 / I it le 1 I I i I 1

Louisiana It /

Maine I 1' 1 i i 1 1

Maryland / / i i / i i i i , /

Massachusetts of 1 1

Michigan V / / It / of st /

Minnesota /

Mississippi se 1 / ee sI if if

Nevada V

New Hampshire / / It It

New Jersey / If / i

2 9

20
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

e

e

..9

1/4 1 k L.

so e if' $ -sr -9 4`7. ;,-,- et (r- k- 4 -- 4 e6?14P1

ca. -fy 4

.. . . . - . lTiiiJ N STATE Achievement Post-School Status

New Mexico / 11 / f I II

New York 1111 / /1

North Carolina / of / 1 I 1 1 1

North Dakota le / 1 1 1 1 / I V /

Ohio of / 1 of I

Oklahoma it i 1

Oregon It I 1 of I 1 I 1 / /

Rhode Island *1. / le / it / 1 /

South Carolina le s, / /111

South Dakota se I If 11 ofie

Tennessee 1 of 1 / 1

Texas 1 1 l I / 1 1 I 1 1

Utah i 1 1 1 1 1 of / 1 I 1 I

Vermont 1 1 1 I le 1 1 I

Virginia / 1 / 1 1 I

Washington / / / i i i i

West Virginia 1 1 1

Wisconsin 11 ,/ 111 /I

Am Samoa / / 1

BIA 1

DC I s

Guam of 1 / / 1

CNMI

RMI 1 it / se

Palau / 1

Puerto Rico of

USVI t 7

30

21
State Assessment of Outcomes Table 10 Uses of Vocational Skills Data

Vodational;Skills Data in Reports and Evaluations

Report to

State Legislature Program Evaluation

Maryland

Ohio

Oregon

Vermont

Report to LEAs

Florida

Georgia

Maryland

New Mexico

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Delaware

Maryland

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Guam

Internal SEA Reports

Palau

Other

31

Delaware

South Dakota

Vermont

22
State Assessment of Outcomes Figure 3 s Regular States Use of Collected Data

Participation Data

NZ.; ...:** a"

, ...... xx.:::SW,44Vat. .

6

10

zk. A

loW

. . e N4j::44k

3 2 AMOR F

23
State Assessment of Outcomes a Figure 3 Regular States Use of Collected Data

a

:§ks:\

I . .

2

5

13

11

" ASICOPVI;atzlai

24
%.`Vocational Skills Data

, :` S " , -

, tA. , " ,..

-

k*\"':,.;`,

kkid' .

:).k''',4;`''''

,,,,...,:..,,,,,,,,3,,,,

, :.:.,,x-s,s,,z,k Zty.,,,A

- : ,

. -' : ,,-;:)4.,,, ...%' S.,. -491,1:15.\41 taitt=,:.71

Z`. 55, ?.

N. ".r. a":54.

,

,5 ,

k...., . ....., , i,,,,,...... ,..,.... 5

,5e...,:,-55 ,,, -,-i.-

0

--

I I

,

, , - . 5. , , % , 7.. . ..... ,-, ..< 5.... .., :::,.. 5,.,..-. ,......, -,z,,.:2,..,,,,-,

..-.::,,.7,.p.- -.-.5,,,,, .5., ,e

sttr,',1',;,;-,r''''s,(,,

'44

swp, rjep

>,-0,,,,--;-5-x*,,w,

, <5<,-,....17,-. -0,4,- 5,

I
a a Overall

1:7

7,7

5.

SS V.4

,' i '

'<'6',.., 5 5 5 . 55 5

' ,

..\i'.4.!: \5 5':'S 5 5:5': 5 SZ

\lI"Z;`'`"

v.,..,-;...":::., ', , , '...', , z ",,s., S. ',;;M:MW.,,M.174'.wr cr\-s.

Sactlk, .W. s .41z,.,TA -,,%,,,. ;.,-....::\,;,\,..., c.u.:........,;,..4,3,,,,..., ,,,,,_?,..., .r.,

a a a a

States with Accessible Data on Students With

Disabilities

SS '

5 55 1: .-- ---M

: 3-, :,',...:,.. - 55 . ...-,..: ' .:-- ,.'

ki: '' , s

, , '

, v

s',,i, , ,',..-,,..-< 1 0

,7*

, s >

, ,,?4

,k <, ,

,

:. , C. ', :, 1

k--,

S , . w;,,-,, ,- ,,,,,.. ,,- . ,

s ;.0"

i..s41).

s5.;.<4.

9.tmi I;;CA1 r
a a Norm-Referenced Tests

s

1, 5 Z4:

S.

.

. S..
State Assessment of Outcomes Table 11 States Assessing Reading & Math

Norm-referenced. Tests Used to Assess Reading and Math

STATE 4:2 co- Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Delaware

Florida

a

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tests are those used in state-level assessment programs.

CAT = California Achievement Test

CTBS = Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills

ITBS Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

MAT = Metropolitan Achievement Test

Stanford = Stanford Achievement Test

TAPS = Tests of Achievement and Proficiency

37

28
State S ecial Education Outcomes 1993

STATE (7.

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio 6

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

CNMI

RIVII

Puerto Rico

USW

29
Including Students With Disbilities

Participation in Aaievemënt Assessments

Figure 6

Students with disabilities who do

not participate in general education achievement assessments

often participate in alternative

assessments. States using alternative forms of assessment are

shown in Figure 6. Typically, the

lEP is the focus of the alternative

assessment.

Figure 7

Figure 7 illustrates, in summary

form, the types of alternative

student achievement data that

are collected in those states that

offer alternative achievement

assessments. References to "IEP

evaluation component" reflect

some states' efforts to make

greater use of the IEP document

and annual evaluations of

whether students meet IEP

objectives.

Figure 8

Although students with disabilities participate in most state-level

achievement assessments, only

thirty-five regular states and five

unique states identify special

education students in their data

sets. Figure 8 shades those states

where data are accessible for

students with disabilities who

participate in achievement

testing. Some states do not have

accessible data on students with

disabilities because they choose

not to separate students in

special education from the

general education population.

Several other states want to

identify students withidisabilities

because it provides them with

achievement information on

special education students: *-4 Table 12

States find it difficult to es te

the number and percentage o

students with disabilities who

participate in statewide assessments. Estimates range from less

than teri percent to more than

ninety percent, with many states

unable to provide estimates. In

checking the percerpges,

participation rates yary considerably from one state to the next.

Thirty-three states and six unique

states have an estimate for the

percentage of students with

disabilities in state achievement

assessments. Of thosi, fourteen

say that less than one-fourth of

students with disabilities take

part in assessments. Only six

states say that more than seventy-five percent of the students

participate in alssessments.

Better data are needed on the

educational outcomes of students

with disabilities. A first logical

step would be to find out how

many students witll disabilities

actually participatep existing

assessment systemi. The next

39

Including students with disabilities

involves more than identifying the

numbers of students participating in

assessments. It involves considering

the available alternative assessments,

-the guidelines for determining who

participates, and the allowable

testing accommodations and

adaptations.

k

'74

31
Including Students With Disabilities

step would be to look at the

variability in rates to determine

ways to reduce it.

Accommodations

Table 13

States use many types of decision

rules for inclusion. These rules

take into consideration the level

of service received, time in

general education, student

characteristics, and undefined

decisions made at the local level

(usually at the school level).

Almost two thirds of the states

with inclusion guidelines allow

the decision to be made at the

local level.

Approximately one third of the

states use criteria such as student

specific characteristics, level of

service received and time in

general education. Over two

thirds of the states use a combination of criteria or decision

rules. State personnel noting

"other" in their responses identified the following types of considerations in their decision rules

about inclusion: lEPs, state

laws/board rules, extent of

cognitive disability, and courses

for which the student is

mainstreamed. The emphasis on

local control is evident in the

types of decision rules used by

states.

Table 14

Responsibility for deciding

whether to include specific

students with disabilities is often

given to the IEP team. This is the

case in about eighty percent of

the states. Principals are identified as key decision makers in

nine regular and five unique

states. An emphasis on local

control is evident in who makes

decisions about inclusion.

Figure 9

Many states have written rules

about the inclusion of students

with disabilities. The thirty-six

states and four unique states that

have formal or written guidelines

for inclusion decisions are

shaded in Figure 9. Despite these

guidelines, questions remain

about how consistently they are

implemented in different settings. Variations in participation

can be attributable to whether

decision makers include or

exclude students with disabilities

in large-scale assessments.

Figure 10

Accommodations in testing

procedures often are necessary

when students with disabilities

participate in general education

assessments. State education

agencies in thirty-one regular

and two unique states publish

formal or written guidelines. In

forty-five regular and six unique

states, accommodations of some

type are allowed.

4 0

Table 15

There are four main types of

accommodations for students

with disabilities: alternate

presentation mode, alternate

response mode, flexibility of time

limits, and flexibility of setting.

Table 15 presents the types of

accommodations allowed by

states and further indicates the

types of alternate presentations

and responses allowed by each

state. Alternate presentation

modes include Braille, oral

reading, sign lanpage, large

print materials, and other IEPdetermined modes. Alternate

response modes include the use

of computers, oral responses,

sign language, and other IEPdetermined modes. Numerous

states indicated that all of these

types of accommodations are

available upon request.

32
EJ Shaded states have alternative achievement assessments NHMA RI CTNJ DE MD 41 tasal f-1 American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 42
Including Students With Disabilities Figure 7 Alternative Assessments

5 P555 SS5S S 4E1), Eviittation, 8

Oomponent

s

4

e

t

,-,Wrtpng nlpiepf

,sCtirrioutilai»Based . ss r Measuress,:,

e Gradeilotjeeklisui

,s

s

4

4

^

SIEP Eygipahon 5 Co;n4Oon§r4 5, ;.5 , -

s, rttJng $aMpiest Curr,iputuS143ased Measure0'

>

"OriOes/ohe (*Viotti,

7

2

1

Note: All of the information in Rgure 7 is from State Special EducatiOn Outcomes 1992.

34 4:-; rig CDR OWN:
Shaded states have achievement data NHMA RI CTNJ DE MD 44 American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 45
Including Students With Disabilities Table 12 Estimated Participation

Estimated Participation of Students with Disabilities in 'State Achievement,Assessments

STATE o\O

45- Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

, Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska*

Nevada

New Hampshire

-------. New Jersey

4

36
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

STATE

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklaholna*

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming*

Am Samoa

BIA*

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

This information was unavailable or students didn't participat. in assessment.

47

37
Including Students with Disabilities Table 13 Decision Rules for Inclusion

-

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

e se° e

e 0. 0, cf

* e . c.., --9 dr c2 =..t, co b

..f,

pr, .

it,

4, Q., c, _...., ./ 0 0 QV

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

4

38
State Spedal Education Outcomes 1993 STATE New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island ' South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming AmSamoa BIA DC Guam CNMI RMI Palau Puerto Rico USW 49 39
Including Students with Disabilities Table 14 Decision Makers for Inclusion

Decision Maker's tor Inclusion in State Assessments -

STATE

_ Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa*

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana*

Nebraska*

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

5 0

40
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

STATE A!'

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma*

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont*

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI*

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

This Inistenetion s unsvellatee or studnts did not participate In sssewnsid.

51

41
ED Shaded states have formal/written rules 5 4. ARI CTNJ DE MD American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) rJ
= Formal/Written Guidelines Reported NHMA RI CTNJ DE MD .0 e)at,QG HI 5 4 LEA Lia.A American Samoa Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) District of Columbia (DC) Guam Palau Puerto Rico (PR) Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 55
Including Students with Disabilities Table 15 Accommodations Allowed

Testing Accommoations Allowed by States

4. e4

.p.e,e

z) 74? 4' 4231 o

4-64r

414?- e /

44,

cY or V .7

Aiternate Presentation

f a a cr ka

STATE Accommodation Type Alternate Response

Alabama 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Alaska 1 1 1 1 of 1

Arizona i 1 / i ,,, i i / / i i se st It

Arkansas j 1 1 1 1 1 1 se I 1 1 se

California 1 1 1

Colorado 1 1 /

Connecticut i i I 1 i 1 i se i 1 1

Delaware 1 1 1

Florida f f 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Georgia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 of

Hawaii of f 1 of of le 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1

Idaho 1 1 1 1

Illinois 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / le # i

Indiana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1

Iowa

Kansas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kentucky 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 le if /

Louisiana i se / / It 1/ It i 1 if I of i 1

Maine 1 1 1 1 i se i e i i # # #

Maryland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Massachusetts 1 / / 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1

Michigan 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

Minnesota

Mississippi 1 1 se ie i i # i if # i

Missouri 1 1 1 / 1 I

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l' 1

New Hampshire i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1

i 1 ----7 i I

New Jersey le / i 1 1

5 6

44
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

sr e 4 Cb ..c) 4

i e 4,1--- 1 i ,g 1 , 4,

e

egz 4' 1

d- cr 4,7

STATE Accommodation Type Alternate Presentation Alternate Response

New Mexico / le if 1 / -1 / 1 / I / / / 1

New York le 1 / 1 le / / oe 1 V / I / /

North Carolina le ,,, / 1 / / V V V / I / V

North Dakota 1 / se / I' /

Ohio / of V V / V le V V / 1 i / /

Oklahoma / / / se / 1 / I

Oregon 1 1 I 1 V V 1 V / V / I / st

Pennsylvania V I / V V / or V V / 1 ,,, 1

Rhode Island 1 V V / V V /

South Carolina / 1 / / / V V / 1 1

South Dakota / / J 1

Tennessee V 1 V V V / I I

Texas V I V / l / / V 1 j i j i

Utah / /

Vermont

Virginia I f 1 I/ 1 1 , , , V V I I I V

Washington le / / / 1 / / / / /

West Virginia If / J 1

Wisconsin 1 1 of / 1 / 1 le 1 se I / se

Wyoming

Am Samoa / 1 1 1

BIA of i if 1 of

DC 1 /

Guam / of st / se

CNMI

RMI

Palau / se 1

Puerto Rico / of / / I 1 /

INV1

5 7

4 5
State Needs

Barriers to Outcomes Assessment andAssistance Needs

Table 16

Specific barriers to successful

assessments have been listed in

Table 16. These were identified by

either the state director of special

education or by assessment

personnel in each state. The most

prevalent barriers were related to

system-wide issues, data use, and

assessment instruments. Two

states identified additional

barriers to outcomes assessment:

shortage of funding and lack of

statewide consensus.

Table 17

States identify a range of

assistance needs, as Table 17

illustrates. States continue to

identify a need to increase stakeholder awareness of the value of

outcomes information. They also

indicate that time and technical

advice are criticaL The three states

having responses in the "other"

category mention funding and the

development of assessment tools.

58

Successful state assessments of

educational outcomes for students

with disabilities are becoming more

important for two reasons. One,

because educational reforms are

gaining public attention, and two,

because parents and policymakers are

asking eucators to use accountability

systems that focus on the results of

education. In the process of assessing

educational outcomes, states identify

specific barriers to outcomes

assessment and a range of assistance

needs.

47
Technical 

Expertise 

LEA 

Concern 

About 

Data 

Use 

Need 

for 

Useable 

Models 

System-Wide 

Concerns Staff 

Limitations e Limitations 

Definitions 

of 

Outcomes Teacher 

Concerns 

Assessment nstruments 

General 

Education 

Unit 

Concerns 

Other 
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

STATE

CO Qf e

471 al" .)0

0 co

4*-9 0

0 0 0

;."-,,,. L.,-:- 0 6,

..4-:" ..,/5.." 4: 0 1 e

ca. 0 0

e

e

c,) i.,9

d7

0e 0 0e 40b c4. 0 0 ...rd <

$:..,. /.0 (.. .. New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming * Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

/

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

49
State Needs Table 17 State Needs for Outcomes Assessment

State Assistance Needs foi. Outcomes Assessment

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

61

50
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

STATE

,ee e

43

0 1

tr

.S'. 42 V ke .. co irr 0 03*

.4 0 C:*

.4.,

37 qr .4'

A.; .`

ra a, c6 al' co

... <2° New Mexico

New York

North Carolina . North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

'Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont 0

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Am Samoa

BIA

DC

Guam

CNMI

RMI

Palau

Puerto Rico

USVI

6 2

51
Practices, Programs, and Plans

Practices, Programs, and Plans Related to Outcomes

Table 18

States are engaging in many

outcomes-related practices and

making plans foa- future state-level

outcomes activities. Table 18 lists

the general categories of

outcomes-related activities being

emphasized in states, according to

the responses of State Directors of

Special Education.

Most states with computer/

management information systems

have invested in data management systems to maintain

comprehensive records of special

education students' school

careers. Some of these systems

(e.g., Ohio, USVI) are being

designed to follow students after

they leave school.

States that mentioned coordination with general education often

had joint efforts between special

education and general education

when designing assessment

systems (e.g., Arkansas, BIA,

California, Georgia, Minnesota,

New Mexico). States also mentioned efforts to increase cooperation and collaboration between

special education and general

education at all levels within their

states.

Several states now have transition/follow-up/follow-along

programs. These efforts to collect

outcomes information on former

students usually start with federal

funds and often involve state

departments of education.

Several states incorporate

outcomes-oriented principles by

implementing initiatives such as

outcomes-based education

models, performance assessments,

performance accreditations, and

collaborative teaching methods.

Additionally, states are increasing

assessment participation, including special education in learner

outcomes, and developing state

indicators.
Practices, Programs, and Plans Table 18

Practices, Programs and Plans of States

STATE

s.... ,p,' , ..:z

..g, e ...-s.,... ... 0 ,,,, ..,. ip 0.. , <c° c4:2 '77 ..) -Z.- ti -ti 0, et, 1/4 1/4 0 tb 0 1/4 0 C.? 4 C.)

....0 C., 4t

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

6 4

54

Nontraditional

State Assessments

States interested in reform are

beginning to explore using nontraditional assessments, also

known as "performance

assessments" and "authentic

assessments," because they

perceive standard multiple-choice

assessments to be inadequate.

Traditional, multiple choice tests

are now thought to be inappropriate for measuring what students

know and are able to do in a

reformed educational system.

Multiple choice items tend to

assess lower-order factual recall

and comprehension skills,

whereas nontraditional performance items measure higherorder thinking, problem solving,

and analytic skills.

Nontraditional assessments may

take many different forms. They

can vary from writing samples, to

science experiements, to portfolios

that are compiled by students

over extended periods of days,

weeks, even months.

Over time, considerable controversy has developed about the use

of traditional and nontraditional

items in state assessments. One of

the issues being debated by

researchers and policymakers is

whether alternative assessments

are reliable, valid, and authentic.

Despite the controversy, however,

many states have either begun

considering the development of

such assessments, are in the

process of developing them, or

have started implementating

them.

Because a growing number of

states use nontraditional assessments, the North Central Regional

Educational Laboratory (NCREL),

in collaboration with the Council

of Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO), included 4uestions

about nontraditiondl assessments

in their annual survey of state

assessment personnel.

In the section of the kirvey on

nontraditional assessments,

NCREL asked states:

Which content areas use

nontraditional assessments?

What type of nontraditional

assessments are being used in

each content area?

What stage of development are

the nontraditional

assesssments?

With permission from CCSSO and

NCREL, NCEO used data from

the NCREL survey and conducted

a follow up. The purpose of this

activity was to identify what

implications new assessments will

have on students with disabilities.

NCEO personnel contacted thoSe

states that indicated they were

either pilot testing or using nontraditional item formats in their

statewide assessments.

For each nontraditional item type,

NCEO asked states how many,

students with disabilities participated in the assessment, by

category of disability, if possible.

57

i

NCE0 wants'to know how

extensively alkrnative assessrIsents are incllisding and making

accommoaa lions fpr students with

:1 1

Because alic e assissments

are recent, ers can

consider ho cludeSTudents'

with disabilitie erly in the 1 developmentPi &e.g. They can

also plan for aiivnodarions and

modifications t` inelrease the

participationb tuents with

disabilities.

Researchers andAlicymakers

disagree about whIther

nontraditional assessments make it

easier to include sOdents with

disabilities. SQme cy-gue that they

allow larger numb s of students '

with disabilities to

in fact, pkomote

mance by those s

argue that such as

emphasize problem

higher-order thinki

will pres&tt the s

challenges to stude

disabilities.

articipate and,

er perfornts. Others

SSSITIents

olvitg and

g syls and

or 4greaterd

s with
Nontraditional State Assessments

The survey also asked states to

answer

What are your guidelines for

using accommodations and

adaptations during nontraditional assessments?

III How do you summarize and

report data from nontraditional

assessments for students with

disabilities?

According to the 1992 NCREL

survey, thirty states indicated they

either pilot tested or used

nontraditional items in assessing

a variety of content areas. NCEO's

survey to those states showed the

following 21 states used nontraditional items in their statewide

assessments in 1992:

Alabama Maryland

Alaska Minnesota

Arizona Nevada

Arkansas New jersey

California New York

Connecticut Ohio

Delaware Oregon

Florida Pennsylvania

Georgia Tennessee

Illinois Vermont

Kansas

Table 19 lists the specific content

areas in which each state used

nontraditional assessment items.

The number of reported areas for

nontraditional assessments varied

considerably from one (in Alaska)

to as many as seven (in Connecticut). Writing was the most commonly assessed area, occurring in

17 of 21 states, followed by math

in 12 of 21 states, and reading in 9

of 21 states. "Other" areas include

history, foreign language, arts,

career education, and integrated

content.

Participafion of Students

with Disabilities

NCEO's survey included a

separate response page for each

type of nontraditional assessment

item: enhanced multiple choice;

short-answer open-ended; extended response open-ended;

interview; observation; individual

performance assessment; group

performance assessment; portfolio

or learning record; project, exhibition, demonstration; or other. The

response page also noted how

many students with disabilities

participated in the assessment.

Table 20 charts the types of nontraditional items used with students with disabilities. The largest

number of states (13) used extended response open-ended

items in all content areas. Several

states utilized short-answer openended, individual performance

assessment, and enhanced multiple choice in most content areas.

Only one state each used portfolio

and learning records (VT) and

observations (GA), and no states

used interviews.

Table 21 summarizes the number

of students with disabilities

participating in the nontraditional

assessments. Only 7 of the 21

states knew the number of participating students with disabilities.

Another two states estimated the

percentage of students with

disabilities who participate. In the

nine states providing either

estimates or actual numbers, four

can break their numbers down by

grade level and only two can

break their numbers down by

category of disability.

6 7

Types of Accommodations

and Adaptations

NCEO's survey also asked states

to list what accommodations or

adaptations they used in each of

their assessments, see Table 22.

Most states said they rely on the

IEP to specify what accommodation is needed, without other

state-defined guidelines. An equal

number of states do and do not

have guidelines. When guidelines

exist, they are typically specific in

detailing the types of accommodations and adaptations that may be

used, and generally these cover a

range of possibilities. Some states

(for example in Maryland) allow

specific accommodations for

specific categories of disability.

Reports of Results

at State Level

As Table 23 illustrates, states vary

greatly in the way they report

data from assessments that include students with disabilities:

II all data together, without

differentiation,

data for students with

disabilities presented separately

from other students' data,

data for students with disabilities not included in any way.

Eight states include data on

students with disabilities in their

overall report without separating

it, three states present the data

separately, and six states do not

provide any data for students

with disabilities.

58
Table 19 Content Areas Assessed with Nontraditional Assesment Items

Content Areas Assessed with Nontraditional Assesment Items

STATE -er

4.>

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Kansas

Maryland

Minnesota

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Vermont

Note: Indicates that this area was assessed. Information is br.sed on responses to the NCEO survey for only those states responding and

beyond the pilot test stage. Four states did not respond: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, and West Virginia.

Connecticut used nontraditional items in two other areas (listening and integrated content), Maryland in one other area (social studies),

and New York in two other areas (history and foreign language).

66

59
Table 20 Types of Nontraditional Items in State Assessments

Types of Nonfladitional Items

Nontraditional item States Using Areas in Which Used

Enhanced multiple choice CA CT IL KS MD

PA

Reading , Writing, Math,

Eng/Lang Arts, Science, Social

Studies

Short answer open-ended AZ CT MD MN

NJ NY PA

Reading, Writing, Mail', Eng/Lang

Arts, Science, Listening, Integratad

Content, Social Studies

Extended response open-ended AL AK AZ AR CT

FL KS NJ NY OH

OR PA VT

Reading, Writing, Math, Eng/Lang

Arts, Science, Listening, Integrated

Content

Interview

Observation GA Reading, Math

Individual performance

assessment

DE GA KS MN

NV NY TN

Reading, Writing, Math, Foreign

Language

Group performance assessment MD PA Writing, Math

Portfolio or learning record VT Writing, Math

Project, exhibition,

demonstration

DE MN Reading, Writing

Other, nonspecified CT NJ Reading, Writing, Math, Eng/Lang

Arts, Science, Listening, Integrated

Content

6 9

60
Table 21 Students with Disabilities Participating in Nontraditional Assessments

Participation Rates of Students with Disabilities

STATE Number of students

in assessment *

Data broken down

bi grade?

Data broken down

by category?

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

NA

NA

1,636 YES NO

Arkansas

California

Connecticut

NA

NA

NA

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

(70-80%)

20,326

1,353

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

Illinois

Kansas

Maryland

20,277

4,505

(95-98%)

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Minnesota

Nevada

New Jersey

NA

NA

7,194 YES YES

New York

Ohio

Oregon

60,885

NA

NA

NO NO

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Vermont

NA

NA

NA

Highest number when more than one content area was assessed. "NA indicates that the participation rate informationwas not available.

70

61
Table 22 Accommodations/Adaptations in Nontraditional Assessments

Types Of Accommodations/Adaptations

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Connecticut *

Delaware *

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Kansas

Maryland

Minnesota

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania *

Tennessee

Vermont *

These states gave unique rsponses. Connecticut indcated it is in the process of revising its guidelines. Delaware indicated that a range of accommodations is used, but did not specify what they are. Pennsylvania indicated it is allowing anything thatensures indmion. Vermont

allows anything that is allowed in instruction. Pennsylvania and Vermont were codedas allowing the four types of accomnxxiationsl

adaptations because no specification was given that the IEP had to list what was allowed.

71

62
Table 23i Reporting Results at the State Level

Reporting Results on-Students with Disabilities at the State Level

STATE

Alabama

Alaska *

Arizona

Arkansas

California *

Connecticut

Delaware *

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Kansas

Maryland

Minnesota

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Tennessee *

Vermont

These states Gave unique rsponses. Alaska indicated that it reported data at the district level only. California indicated that it did not yet

have data available to report Delaware indicated that it reports data at the individual student level; data for students who take

assessments under more than minor accommodations are not included in data reports. Tennessee indicated that it has not yet dedded

about reporting.

72

63 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
State Activities in

Selected Outcomes Areas

73

65
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

ALABAMA

ALASKA

ARIZONA

Alabama uses the Integrated Reading and Writing

Assessment for Grade Two, the Basic Competency

Tests (BCT) (grades 3, 6, & 9), the Stanford

Achievement Test (grades 4 & 8), the Otis-Lennon

School Ability Test (grades 4 & 8), the Alabama

Direct Assessment of Writing: Grade Five, the

Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing: Grade

Seven, the Algebra I End-of-Course Test, the

Geometry End-of-Course Test, and the High School

Basic Skills Exit Exam. All are part of a general

education effort and administered once during

the school year except for the Bit Exam. This is

administered twice (fall and spring) in grades

11 and 12 (giving those failing in llth grade

additional opportunities to pass). The decision

to include a student with disabilities is made by

the student's IEP and/or 504 committee. Test

accommodations, if needed, are available.

Alaska started collecting inforznation in 1989

using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades 4, 6,

and 8. All areas in the test are used, which

includes reading (including vocabulary),

language (including spelling) and math. All

achievement data are collected annually (in

designated grades) through a general education

effort All students with disabilities participate

in the assessment, unless the lEP states that this

measurement is inappropriate for the child. The

collected information is presented in an annual

report and used to provide the state department with basic information on school districts.

In addition, the information is also reported to

parents and used for accountability purposes.

For 10 years, Arizona has been collecting

information on reading, math, and language

arts using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the

Tests of Achievement and Proficiency. Administration of these instruments is required once a

year in grades 2-11, and optional in grades 1

and 12. All students with disabilities participate

to the extent recommended by the LEP team.

The tests are administezed lorAlly. A contractor

scores the locally administered tests and

submits reports to the local units and state unit.

The information is thus used to produce both

state and local reports.

7 4

Alabama collects employment information on

special education students who have been

placed in jobs by vocational education programs. Data are gathered by local units, using

state-developed follow-up questionnaires, and

are reported to the state. This type of information has been gathered for about 10 years,

mostly on students considered to have mild

disabilities. Reports are sent to local education

agencies and to the legislature where the

information is used for funding requirements

and related decisions.

Arizona temporarily collects information on

unemployment, enrollment in school, and

living arrangements for all special education

students as part of a Federal Grant. Multiple

sources, including teachers, parents, and

students are used in the information-gathering

effort. The information that is collected is used

for program evaluation.

66
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

Alabama collects data on vocational

interest, aptitude, and aspirations using

the Differential Aptitude Tests with Career

Interest Inventory. This information is

collected in the 8th grade through a

general education effort. The decision

whether to include a student with

disabilities is made by the student's IMP

committee. Limited test accommodations are available. If the assessment is

deemed inappropriate, an individual

vocational evaluation is available

through Vocational Rehabilitation.

7 5

67
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

ARKANSAS Arkansas collects information using both the

state-developed Mir aim Performance Tests

(grades 3, 6, 8) and the Stanford Achievement

Tests (grades 4, 7, 10). State-developed test

information is collected on reading and math

achievement in grades 3, 6, and 8, and on

language arts, social studies, and science in

grades 6 and 8. The test is used in grades 3 and

6 to formulate an academic improvement plan,

and in grade 8 to determine promotion to 9th

grade. With the Stanford, informafion is collected on reading (including word knowledge

and word analysis), math, language (including

spelling), science, and social studies in grades 4,

7. and 10. All achievement information is

collected once during the designated grades

through a general education effort that started

in apprmdmately 1983. All students with

disabilities participate in the state-developed

tests "if applicable." Only those students with

disabilities who are receiving resource level

help are included in the Stanford testing (i.e.,

those in self-contained classes are excluded).

Generally, participation in the testing program

is left to the discretion of the IEP team. Arkansas also sends the data to an outside contractor,

who returns a report to the state. The Stanford is

used internally to assess school district performance and is included in state reports.

CALIFORNIA California used the California Assessment

Program (CAP) since the mid 1970s to collect

information on reading comprehension, math

calculation, spelling, and written language in

grades 3, 6, 8, and 12. These data were colleded

annually (in the designated grades). The

system has been suspended and a new performance-based approach, California Learning

Assessment System (CLAS), is currently being

piloted.

COLORADO Since 1984, Colorado has annually collected

data on placements after preschool for all

students with disabilities. Data are collected by

the University of Colorado on placements after

preschool (grades K-12) in comparison to

children without preschool experience. Variables range from language scores to educational

costs. The data are used for planning, particularly related to PL 99-457.

76

68
State S ecial Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Livin Attitudes and As irations

Now completed are three years of pilot

studies to collect outcome data on students with disabilities at grades 3, 6, 8, 10,

and 12. Data are collected in the areas of

academic/developmental functioning, IEP

progress, personal-social characteristics,

and community-economic indicators. The

information will be used to establish

future direction in the collection of

student outcome data at the post

secondary level.

7 7

69
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement

Connecticut collects achievement information

in math, language arts, and writing in grades 4,

6, and 8 using the state criterion-referenced

Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). This locally

implemented general education effort is managed, scored, and reported at the state level.

The CMT has been given annually since 1985.

Students with disabilities have participated

since 1989-90. While any student with a

disability may participate, 60-75% of those who

do are students with mild disabilities (LD,

SED). CMT data are used for: (1) reporting to

the state, (2) reporting to districts, (3) reporting

to parents, (4) program evaluation, (5) assessing

students' basic skills and need for remedial

help, (6) accountability and equity issues, and

(7) assessing special education outcomes.

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

FLORIDA

For academic achievement, Delaware's general

education unit collects math, reading, and

language arts data in grades 3, 6, 8, and 11

using the Stanford Achievement Test for all

students, unless exempt by IEP or a local level

decision. Contractors annually collect data in

the districts and submit it to the state where it

gets reported back to schools, districts, Chapter

1, and parents. In addition, the information is

used for accountability purposes. The special

education unit also collects grades in all course

work for all secondary-level students. Districts

submit transcripts to the state from Rth grade

and the year of exit The ste uses the information for decisions about transition.

Post-School Status

Florida uses a state criterion-referenced high

school graduation test to measure minimum

student performance standards in communications and mathematics for all 11th grade

students. It has a norm-referenced test for all

students in grade 10. Students with disabilities

are not required to participate. Score reports are

provided and national comparison data included for those students who took the test

under standardized conditions. A new writing

performance test is being given in grades 4, 8,

and 10. Although participation has not yet

been determined, student responses will be

holistically scored according to a specified

rubric. Districts administer the tests and the

state provides scoring and reporting services.

All programs generate student, school, dist-id,

and state level information.

78

Delaware has two postsecondary status grants:

1) to develop a transition model, and 2) to

develop a follow-along tracking system from

9th grade through 2-3 years post school. The

special education unit collects district information on employment, wages, living arrangements, and school enrollment for all special

education students in 9th grade and the year of

exit. Districts collect and submit data to the

state. Started in 1989, the follow-up grant

annually conducts telephone interviews for all

disability groups. This enables cross-file access

and tracldng of individual students. The state

uses the information for long range planning

and for evaluation of program effectiveness.

The Florida Education Training and Placement

Information Program (FETPIP) and OSEP grant

personnel are using multiple sources to collect

information on the type of employment (military, private sector, or civil service), quarterly

wages, and post-secondary education of

graduating special education students (1-2

years post-school). Information is collected

locally and reported to the state. The state uses

the data to report back to the districts. The

program has been operating since 1989.

70
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Livin Attitudes and As !rations

The special education unit annually

collects for the state: grades in vocational

courses, types of support needed for

employ..tent, and types of work experience students had in school. For several

years, the data have been collected

through transcripts and exit interview

forms for all students with disabilities in

grades 9 and 12, and on exit information

forms for all students in grade 12. The

data are used for: deciding long-term

planning for adult services, providing

feedback to the districts, evaluating

program quality and effectiveness, and

making program changes.

The Division of Vocational Adult and

Community Education annually collects

data on vocational program enrollment,

completion, and placement of grades 7-12

and post-school students within one year

of program completion. Forms indicate

who completes programs and who gains

marketable skills. The data have bem

collected locally since 1986 and reported

to the state where it is used to: report to

the districts, match individuals to employment, monitor enrollment in community colleges and universities, report

an analysis to the State Board of Vocational Education, legislature and other

agencies, and evaluate the program. A

1992 bill, HB 167, will help study the

progress of disabled students in these

programs.

7P

71
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

1111111111 State

GEORGIA

HAWAII

Academic Achievement

reading, math, writing, science, social studies,

work study skills, and school readiness. A new

statewide testing program is using state criterion-referenced tests: the (1991-92) Georgia

Curriculum-Based Assessments in grades 3, 5, and

8 (for science, social studies, language arts,

reading, mathematics, and writing) and the

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) in

grade 11 (for English/language arts, health,

mathematics, science, social studies, and

writing). Two norm-referenced tests are used:

the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) for all students

in grades 3, 5, and 8 (for reading and mathematics) and the Test of Achievement and Proficiency

(TAP) in grade 11 (on a matrix sampling in

reading, mathematics, written expression,

science, and social studies). For school readiness

assessment, Georgia uses the state-developed

Georgia Kindergarten Test . For all assessments,

students with disabilities are included unless

"the nature or severity of an individual's

handicapping condition may require 'exclusion

from the testing program." For all types of

assessment, the local district collects the data

and reports them to the state. The state uses the

information to: (1) report to the legislature, (2)

report to local units, (3) allocate remedial

education funds, and (4) conduct instnrctional

planning. Performance on the GHSGT also

determines eligibility for graduation.

For more than 10 years, Hawaii has used the

Stanford Achievement Test to annually collect

data on reading, math, and language in grades

3, 6, 8, and 10. Since 1983, it has used the Hawaii

State Test of Essential Competencies annually for

grades 10 and 11, and twice a year for grade 12.

These data are collected from all students,

including students with disabilities (unless

exempted under state-developed guidelines). A

local contractor gives the tests and reports the

data to the State Education Agency, where they

are reported to the legislature and the local

education agencies. The information helps to

make curriculum improvements and to determine eligibility for graduation. Students with

disabilities who pass the test receive a diploma.

Those who do not pass, but meet their IEP

goals, receive a "Program Certificate." A new

option gives al"Course Completion Certificate"

as a graduation certificate.

Idaho's Division of Instruction testing program

Post-School Status

The Psychoeducational Network of Georgia

collects information on students with emotional disorders (ED) one year following high

school. Ulu% a state-developed questionnaire, information is collected on employment, post-secondary schooling, military

service, an support services received by

these stud ts. The information has been

collected reported to the state education

agency since 1982. The state uses the information for program planning.

4

;

72
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills

Measurable goals and accountabffity

measures for special populations were

developed in conjunction with the

standards described in 115 of the Carl D.

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology

Education Act of 1990. Monitoring the

annual evaluation by local recipients

ensures that the programs meet these

goals.

Functional Livin Attitudes and Aspirations_

Hawaii has an evaluation section in

their state office that collects a

"General Graduation Satisfaction"

rating (satisfactica with public

education) from all students. In the

fall of 1990, Hawaii used the

Northwest Regional Education Lab

to produce a report about special

education. The report included

interviews with stakeholders about

their concerns, problems, issues in

special education, and satisfaction

with programs. State board members, district and state people,

teachers, principals, parents and

students in special education were

interviewed. This was a one-time

evaluation project that might be

repeated occasionally.

73
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

IDAHO

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

Idaho's Division of Instruction testing program

has a norm-referenced test with direct writing

samples. Since 1986, the Test of Ac_hievement and

Proficiency has been given to all 11th graders

annually in reading, math, science, social

studies, writing, problem-solving, and performance information. The locally collected data

are submitted to the state for analysis and

reporting to local districts and the legslature.

Additionally, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Ins)

has been used annually since 1985 to test

reading, math, science, and social studies for all

6th and 8th gaders. A contractor collects the

data, submits them to the Division of Instruction, and reports to local districts and the

legislature. For 10 years, writing samples have

been collected from all students and submitted

to the state for scoring and reporting. Students

with disabilities participate unless they are

exempted by their school principal and teacher.

Distxicts are free to use the state recommended

tests or they may choose to use other tests.

The Illinois Goal Assessment Program tests for

mathematics, writing, and reading in grades 3,

6, 8, and 10, and for science and social studies

in grades 4, 7, and 11. The State Board of

Education develops the tests to determine how

schools are meeting goals for learning. Legislation (HB1890), adopted in 1992, says that

exemption from participation shall be made

only on an individual student basis as determined by the pupil's individualized program.

The state reports results to schools, school

districts, students, parents, and the legislature.

Indiana collects information on math and

English/language arts using the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP).

This general education data collection effort

only tests those students with disabilities who

are integrated for math and language arts.

Since 1986, testing has been conducted annually in grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11 by local

districts that report results to the state. These

results identify students needing remediation

through summer school. (The first time a

student does not pass, that student is directed

to attend summer school. The second time, the

student is retained in grade.) Also, the assess-,

ment is one of four factors considered in

outcome-based accreditation for schools.

Idaho has been involved in postsecondary

projects since 1988. The current longitudinal

transition tracking program is conducted by

the University of Idaho and the special

education section of the Idaho Department of

Education. The state uses a locally developed

questionnaire once every year to assess

students' safisfaction with school programs,

employment status, residential placements,

accessibility to community services, and

social involvements. Students with disabffities are contacted prior to their graduation

and thereafter are contacted once a year for

three years. Sixty-six percent of the districts

participate. The information is being used to

report back to the local education agencies

and the legislature, and to conduct program

evaluations.

Indiana collects information on the numbers

of students who are pursuing higher education or post-seccndary education/training.

This information is collected along with exit

data using the sWe form from the Division of

Informational Systems (general education).

Data are collected on all students before

leaving high school, but students with

disabilities are not separated from the total.

(Data are separated only by ethnicity and

gender.) Since 1975, the information has been

reported to the state annually and used for

monitoring accreditation.

74
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

82

75
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

IOWA

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

Kansas collects information on reading and math

for all students in special education, unless

excluded by their IEPs. A state math test is given

to all students in grades 3, 8, and 10. This

information is reported to the state legislature

and the state, and is used for accreditation

purposes. In 1993, tests in communication

(language arts), social skills, and science will be

given state-wide in the same grades.

Kentucky collects data in grades 4, 8, and 12

within: 1) transitional items/tasks (multiple

choice, open-ended, and writing prompts); 2)

performance events; and 3) writing and math

portfolios. The transition component covers

math, science, social science, writing, and

interdisciplinary items in arts/humanities,

practical living, and vocational education. The

portfolio component covers writing and math.

All special education students, except those with

severe disabilities, participate in the regular

assessment. As of. 1992-93, students with severe

disabilities will be assessed via an alternate

portfolio.

All Louisiana students with disabilities pursuing

a high school diploma in regular education take

part in the assessments. In grades 3, 5, 7, and

high school, the Louisiana Educaiional Assessment

Program is is used annually to assess language

arts and math. Seventh graders get assessed in

written composition and high schoolers are

tested in science and social studies. Collected

since 1988, the data are used by the LEA and

state to ensure student mastery of grade level

skills. Students with disabilities in grades 4, 6,

and 9 are assessed annually using the California

Achievement Test (CAT), although students using

test modifications are excluded from state

summaries. CAT data are used to comp Iv state

performance with natonal norms.

Iowa uses a state-developed questionnaire to

get data on students with learning disabilities, behavioral disabilities, and mild mental

disorders (not low incidence disabilities).

This special education effort contracts with

area professional education agency staff to

interview students during summer months.

Since 1986, information has been collected on

former students one, three, and five years

post school. The data become a measure of

product effectiveness for the state, and have

implications for practice and policy.

Kentucky collects information on successful

transitions to adult life for all students as part

of the Kentucky Instructional Results and

Information System (KIRIS) The data are used

as part of the overall school accountability

index.

8 4

76
1

State S edal Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

Louisiana collects information on the

vocational education enrollment of all

students with disabilities unless exempted. This combined general and

special education effort for assessing

students enrolled in vocational courses

was implemented for the first time in

the 1992-93 school year. The information generated from this effort will be

used as required by Federal regulations.

Kentucky's accountability assessment

has a noncognitive component with one

indicator being "successful transition to

adult life." A successful graduate is: 1)

enrolled as a full-time postsecondary

school student; 2) employed at least 30

hours per week ("non-temporary"); 3)

an active member of the United States

military; or 4) any combination of the

above adding up to at least 30 hours

per week. School districts now track

graduates to determine who makes a

successful transition to adult life.

85

77
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

MAINE

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN

Maine has developed a test for student achievement in reading, math, writing, social studies,

science, and the humanities. All students in

fgades 4, 8, and 11 are tested, including those

with disabilities. A contractor scores the tests.

The state reports the information to the schools

and includes directions for how it should be

shared with parents. The information also helps

plan staff development and school improvement.

Maryland uses the Comprehensive Test of Basic

Skills and the Maryland School Performance

Assessment Program in grades 3, 5, and 8, and to

provide the state with information on school

districts. Functional tests in reading, math,

writing, and citizenship are administered twice

per year in grades 9-12. Students with disabilities pursuing high school diplomas participate

because these tests determine eligibility for

graduation.

Massachusetts collects information biannually

through general education in grades 4, 8, and

12. The state-developed Massachusetts Education

Assessment Program (MEAP) uses both multiple

choice and open-ended questions and includes

sections on reading, math, language arts

(including a writing sample), social studies,

and science. Students with disabilities partiupate, unless exempted through their lEPs.

Scores for students receiving more than 25%

special education services outside of the regular

classroom are not included in scores reported

to school districts and individual student scores

are not provided. The state reports MEAP

results to school districts and the legislature.

Michigan collects information annually on

reading and math in grades 4, 7, and 10 and on

science in grades 5, 8, and 1 l. For 15 years, the

state-developed Michigan Educational Assessment

Program (MEAP) has been used by the state to

report back to districts, state boards, and parents.

Usually students with mild or sensory disabilities are

included, but participation is locally determined. By

1994, students must pass proficiency tests in

reading, math, and 13cience in order to receive high

school diplomas with State Endorsement Special

education students may be exempt by using approved alternative testing accommodations that meet

the individual needs of the student

Maryland annually collects data on all

graduates, one year post school, using the

Statewide High School Graduate Follow-up

System. For 20 years, this program has

combined efforts of the state, general, vocational, and special education units. A mail

questionnaire collects data on attendance at

postsecondary schools, employment, and

income. The data are used for reports to the

local education agencies and the legislature.

Massachusetts uses the Exit Fact Data Report

Sheets to collect information on all special

education students, ages 14-22. (Data are

collected on the number of students going to

college, the number going to other postsecondary educational opportunities, and the

number employed in regular and supported

work places.) The local agencies have reported to the state annually, since 1985.

In Michigan, local districts conduct telephone

follow-up interviews of students with

disabilities (or with parent if necessary) one

year after the student has left school. This

special education effort includes all students

with disabilities and seeks data on marital

status, transportation, living arrangements,

recreational functioning, voting, drivel's

license, employment, income, and happiness.

The information has been collected annually

since 1984, and is still being revised. The data

are collected locally and used in a statewide

report and district reports to help make

decisions about programs at the local level.
State Spedal Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

With the Division of Career and Technology Education, Maryland has

annually collected data on the vocational programs and services received

by students with disabilities over grade

8. For 10 years, local districts have used

it to evaluate programs, compare

handicapped with the nonhandicapped

populations, and prepare state and

federal government reports.

Functional living outcomes are measured through the Life Skills Curricular

Framework developed by the state and

implemented at the district level.

87

Maine collects information on the

attitudes and future plans of

students through questions that are

included with tests.

Maryland annually samples

parents and teachers on attitudes/

satisfaction with programs for

students with disabilities at all

grade levels. Student attitudes and

aspirations also are identified and

published in the annual Maryland

School Performance Report.

79
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEBRASKA

NEVADA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mississippi uses the Stanford Achievement Test in

grades 3, 5, and 8. This annual assessment effort

started in 1985 and includes all children, though

students with severe disabilities usually do not

participate. The general education administration collects the data, profiles districts, and

determines services eligibility in local schools.

Additionally, since the late 1970s, course work

grades have been collected on a case by case

basis for all students with disabilities at all age/

grade levels by teams of state department

employees who determine eligibility for service.

Nevada collects information using the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills in grades 3, 6, and 9.

Reading, math, and language are assessed

through a special education effort. All students

participate unless they are exempt.

New Hampshire uses the California Achievement

Test (CAT) annually in grades 4, 8, and 10 (for

reading, math, language, social studies, and

science). Since 1985, data have been jointly

collected by general and special education. All

students mainstreamed for at least 50% of the

time participate, unless the IEP team and

parents feel it is inappropriate. The data appear

in an annual state report and provide the SEA

with basic information on school districts.

A state-developed questionnaire collects data

on employment status and location, wages,

and post-secondary schooling for students in

all disability goups. The Department of

Vocational Education collects the data in

pude 12 aild one year after exiting school.

Each school must report every five years for

federal reporting and the Perkins Reports.

Nebraska collects information on skills,

independence, leisure and social activities,

satisfaction, vocational success, and income.

Since 1988, these data have been collected

annually using surveys and interviews with

all students with mild or moderate retardation who exit programs.

Nevada annually (since 1990) collects information using parent, student, and teacher

telephone interviews for a sample of students

from all disability groups during their senior

year, and one and two years post high school.

New Hampshire collects information on

employment status, relevance of vocational

training, wages, hours per week employed,

and work performance ratings. These data

are collected annually (since 1982) on all

students with disabilities who are in vocational education programs. A vocational

education effort compiles and reports the

data to local agencies.

80
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Livin Attitudes and As irations

Missouri collects data on state-developed forms for all students in grade 11

by local agencies and reported to the

SEA. They have been annually collected

for 10 years and used to report to local

districts and the legislature.

89

81
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

NEW JERSEY

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

New Jersey uses the state-developed High

School Proficiency Test (HSFT) in the 11th grade.

The HSPT annually collects information in

math, reading, and writing through a general

education effort that started in 1986. All students participate unless exempted due to

adverse effects of the testing situation and/or

because the goals and objectives in the IEP do

not address the HSPT proficiencies. The tests

are sent to the state agency where results are

reported back to the local districts. Local

districts use the HSPT to determine graduation

eligibility for individual students.

New Mexico collects data annually using the

New Mexico Reading Assessment, Achievement

Assessment (Reading, Language Arts, Math,

Science, Social Studies), and Direct Writing

Assessment. Since 1986, the reading test has been

given in grades I and 2, the achievement in

grades 3, 5, and 8, and the portfolio writing in

grades 4 and 6 (competency-based test). All

students participate, unless exempted (determined by IEP team), and scores go to the state

board for accountability parposes. The High

School Competency Exam (HSCE) is given to all

students, unless exempted by an IEP team, in

grades 10, 11, and 12 to determine diploma

awards. The HSCE has been given annually

since 1986 (with one extra administration for

seniors each Fall). Both types of tests are given

by the local districts and sent to a contractor

who forwards the information to the state.

All children, unless exempted by the IEP team,

participate in: the Pupil Evaluation Program Test

(PEPT) in math and reading in grades 3 and 6,

and writing in grade 5; Program Evaluation Tests

in science in grade 4, and in social studies in

grades 6 and 8. Scores are used for early

identification of students needing remediation

and to compare students with disabilities to

nondisabled students. Preliminary Competency

Tests in reading and writing are administered in

grade 8 or 9. The Regents Competency Tests

(RCI's), which are related to graduation requirements, are administered to secondary

level students in mathematics, science, reading,

writing, global studies and U.S. history and

government.

New Mexico collects information on employment status and placement through teacher

and employer surveys/interviews. This

general education effort collects information

on employment status for all students (no

exception), but only students with mild

disabilities are included in the collection

efforts for job placement. All vocational

education information is used to report to the

LEAs.

82
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

91

83
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

NORTH

CAROLINA

NORTH

DAKOTA

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

North Carolina has changed its testing progam. End-of-grade tests are being developed

for grades 3-8, and some end-of-course tests are

developed in several areas for grades 9-12. The

tests are multiple choice and open-ended and

are based on the North Carolina Standard

Courses of Study. These state tests replace the

California Achievement Test (CAT).

North Dakota collects information using the

reading, math, language, word analysis, study

skills, spelling, science, and social studies

portions of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills

(CIBS). The CMS is given annually in grades

3, 6, 8, and 11 to all general education students

who are able to read. Local districts administer

the test and report the results to the state for

policy making. In April of 1991, the North

Dakota legislature passed a bill mandating that

schools implement performance-based testing.

OHIO Ohio uses commercially prepared and statedeveloped proficiency tests. Since 1989, school

districts have selected commercially prepared

and state approved test. The tests are given to

all children, if appropriate (the IEP determines),

annually in grades 4, 6, and 8 in reading, math,

and language. Districts report the data to the

state, where it is compiled and reported to the

public and the local districts. The four-kiart,

state-developed tests are given twice a year to

all students unless exempted, beginning in

grade 9, until passed. Seniors who pass all parts

of the 9th grade proficiency test by January 1,

1994, take the 12th grade test. Local districts

collect and report the information to the state.

OKLAHOMA

OREGON Oregon has a statewide assessment in reading,

math, written expression, and language arts for

grades 3, 5, 8, and 11 that includes students

with disabilities unless exempted by the teacher

responsible for the IEP because of curnculum

considerations. The assessment determines

students' level of performance on the state's

curriculum. Achievement data in reading and

math are collected annually through a general

education effort. Reporting occurs in the state's

annual assessment report unless the assessment

was based on modified conditions, and used to

compare districts of similar socio-economic

characteristics.

For the past ten years, the Vocational Education Department has annually interviewed

student, for employment, postsecondary

education, and school satisfaction information. It is collected only for those enrolled in

vocational education. The state receives the , data from the local units and gives feedback

to local and state education agencies.

North Dakota collects information on

postsecondary experiences using a follow-up

survey or interview. A special education

effort collects information on all special

education students one year after exiting

high school. Beginning in 1990, state trained

people have been collecting the data from the

local districts. The information is used for

program improvements.

Oregon annually collects data on the last year

of school and two years post school. The

school component uses computer-assisted

questionnaires given to teachers, parents, and

students through a University of Oregon

effort. The out-of-school data are collected by

computerized telephone interviews. Students

from all disability categories are included

and the information is used for (1) providing

data for state level policy, and (2) providing

data for local community program improvement.

84
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Livin Attitudes and As irations

Oregon collects data on employment

status, enrollment in and type of vocational education, and job placement of

all students with disabilities. Through a

special education and University of

Oregoa effort, the data are collected

from teachers, parents, students, document reviews, and the Oregon FollowAlong Study. They are in reports to the

state legislature and to LEAs. They also

are used to generate internal SEA

reports and to evaluate SEA programs. 93

OTHER AREAS: Ohio collects and

evaluates data about IEP goals

achieved by the instructional area

for students in the Chapter 1 (89-

313) program. Progress is rated on

a three point scale: little/no improvement, moderate improvement, and much improvement.

The information is collected using a

state-developed form, for all

disability groups, ages 3-21.

Through a special education effort,

state supported and state operated

agencies have been reporting the

information to the state for more

than 10 years.

85
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

Onwl

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania State Board of Education curriculum regulations (March 1992) assign responsibility for assessment to different levels ofithe

school system. State level data comes fror

school-based assessment of reading and math- I

ematics at grades 5, 8, and 11, and writing at 4, grades 6 and 9. All students with disabilities are

encouraged to participate in these assessinents. 4 Results are published in a combined readingA

mathematics school report that is distributectito

all participating local districts. A separate

report is prepared for writing.

Rhode Island collects achievement information

in reading and math using the Metropolitan

Achievement Test at grades 4, 8, and 10. A,

writing assessment is administered at grades 3

and 6. Most special education students ate

tested and limited exemptions occur bated on (

IEP determinations. Special education tus is

recorded for state analysis of perfo

Teachers and parents receive copies of est

results.

RHODE ISLAND

SOUTH

CAROLINA

South Carolina collects information in reading,

language/English, and mathematics using the

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 8th edition) in

grades 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Information also is

obtained through the Basic Skills Assessment

Program (BSAP): reading and math tests in

grades 1 and 2; reading, math, and science tests

in grade 3; reading, math, science, and writing

tests in grades 6 and 8; and reading, math and 1 writing subtests at the exit examination level.

The Exit Examination is given to all students in

the 10th grade. Students in the 11th and 12th

grades take any subtest(s) that they have not

previously passed. All data are collected

annually in the spring with 12th graders takuig

the exit examination in the fall. All students

with disabilities participate unless they have

IEPs that specifically state that the testing

program is inappropriate. The collected iinformation is reported to the state legislature, local

school districts, students, and parents. The data

are used to place students into the next grade

and for incentive programs. Students must pass

all three subtests of the Exit Examination in

order to receive a South Carolina High School

Diploma. Both testing rrograms are currently

being examined for revision.

4
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

95

87
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

SOUTH DAKOTA

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

South Dakota collects achievement data in

reading, mathematics, language, social science,

and science. The local general education units

administer the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

for grades 4, 8, and 11 and forward it to a

contractor who compiles results for the state

and local agencies. All students participate

unless exempted by school officials. Collected

since 1983, achievement data are used by the

state to give feedback to LEAs and to improve

the program. Information can be shared with

parents and Chapter I programs may use the

data for program evaluation. The SEA is using

the data in school accountability efforts for the

first time during 1992-93.

Tennessee uses the Tennessee Comprehensive

Assessment Program (T-CAP) in grades 2-8 and

10 (optional in grades 1, 11, and 12). Areas

include: reading, language, math, science, social

studies, and study skills. Started in 1989, this

general education program includes all students

with disabilities, unless the multi-disciplinary

team decides it is inappropriate. Results help to

monitor student improvement and determine

whether students obtain a regular diploma. The

state also administers the Tennessee Proficiency

Test twice per year in grades 9-12 for English,

reading, spelling, and math. It is not known

when this general education assessment started,

but all students with disabilities participate and

there are no exemption guidelines.

Texas collects information on reading, writing,

math, science, and social studies achievement

using state-developed criterion-referenced tests

(CRT), the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

(TAAS) program. This general education effort

reports results for all students, with special

education scores disaggregated from other

scores. The current assessment plan requires

CRT testing annually in reading and math for

grades 3 through 8, and in writing, science, and

social studies for grades 4 and 8. Students take

their first exit level test at grade 10 in reading,

writing, and math, with an opportunity to

retest in grades 11 and 12. With results, the state

develops district report cards and districts

evaluate student achievement All students are

mandated by law to participate in the CRT

testing, unless given a special education exemption by an admission, review, or dismissal

committee.

Texas conducts a survey of special education

students in transition that includes the

following: service needs of students with

disabilities, placement at graduation, and

outcomes of in-school and post-school

students. A new system is being developed

to report data in conjunction with the current

statewide data management system.

9 6

88
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Livin

South Dakota collects information on

employment status, enrollment in

vocational education, type of vocational

program, and job placement of all

students with disabilities. The data,

collected through a joint special education and South Dakota Department of

Labor effort, are obtained from teachers

and students. The information is used to

report to the LEAs, SEAs, and the

Department of Labor.

Texas collects data using The Special

Education Outcomes Study. Developmental quotients of a sample of

approximately 1,000 special education

students (in all 9 disability areas) Are

collected using developmental or

adaptive behavior assessments such as

the Vineland and Adaptive Behavior

Scales. Scores are from grade 12

assessments (or within past two years).

The data, collected locally in 1990

when the study began, are reported to

the state. The information will be

included in the overall profiles of the

sample students and eventually be

used to compar; student outcomes

with types of programs, types of

disabilities, and adaptive behavior

skills of students exiting high school.

97

Attitudes and Aspirations

89
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

UTAH

Academic Achievement Post-School Status

VERMONT

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTON

Utah collects information on reading, math,

written expression, social studies, and science

using the Stanford Achievement Test (SAD. This

general education effort, begun in 1990, includes all students at all grade levels, except for

those students with multiple handicaps and

severe or profound disabilities. The information

helps determine how students are doing

statewide. Utah is in the process of developing

a criterion-referenced assessment for reading,

math, art, music, vocational education, and

functional adaptive behavior skills.

Vermont uses Portfolio Assessments in gades 4

and 8. The areas tested are math and writing,

which are collected annually through a collaborative general and special education effort.

Started in 1991, this assessment effort includes

all students with disabilities. The information is

reported to the state and used to determine

school-wide performance, needed curriculum

changes, needed resources, and overall improvement of the "Vermont Landscape" of

which all students are a part

Virginia collects information on reading, math,

and written expression through its Literacy

Testing Program. Begun in 1989, this program

is implemented at grade 6 and is basically a

criterion-referenced system administered by the

general education unit. A local decision

exempts students. Data are also obtained

through norm-referenced testing (Iowa Test of

Basic Skills , grades 4 and 8; Tests of Achievement

and Proficiency, grade 11). Local districts administer all tests and report to the state. Information is used for feedback to the schools, for

overall program improvement, and in the

Virginia Outcome Accountability Project.

Washington collects information on reading

and math using the Metropolitan Achievement

Test (MAT) in grades 4, 8, andll. All students

with disabilities may participate at the discretion of parents and teachers. All achievement

data are collected annually through the Assessment Unit. Contractors with the test publishers

compile the data and send them to the state,

where they are used in budget planning, state

reports, and feedback to the local units. This

general education effort is approximately 10

years old. Washington is currently in the

process of changing achievement tests.

Since 1988, Vermont has annually used a

post-secondary quesfionnaire to collect data

about employment, education, living arrangements, friendships, decision making,

wages, and school satisfaction on a sample of

students with disabilities who exit school.

Joint efforts of the Department of Education,

University of Vermont, Local Education

Agencies, and State Education Agency

compile the data into a statewide database to

modify programs and increase opportunities.

Virginia collects information on the post

secondary education and successful employment of all students with disabilities who

graduate from school or drop out by contacting them within one year of exiting school.

This information is collected by the Department of Rehabilitation, Department of

Mental Health/Mental Retardation, and the

Employment Commission. First piloted in

1989, the official data collection began in

1990 and is done annually. These data are

used to determine outcome indicators.

90
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills FunctIona! Living Attitudes and Aspirations

9 9

91
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

WEST VIRGINIA

WISCONSIN

WYOMING

West Virginia collects information on reading,

math, language arts, science, and social studies

for all students with disabilities unless they are

exempt. A criterion-referenced test, as well as

the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, is used to

assess achievement. General education collects

the data for use in reports to the state and to the

LEAs, and for accountability purposes.

Wisconsin collects data on reading comprehension using a state-developed criterion-referenced test. Since 1989, this general education

effort has been gival annually to all students,

unless exempted, in grade 3. Local schools

administer the test and report the data to the

state. The state reports results to the legislature

and the local districts, where it could be used

for individual student reports. Beginning in

1992-93 on a voluntary basis and 1993-94 on a

mandatory basis, Wisconsin districts will give

knowledge tests to 8th and 10th grade students

using the ACT 8th grade EXPLORE and 10th

grade PLAN. These test mathematics, reading,

English, and science and ask for a writing

sample with two prompts per grade level.

The Bureau for Vocational Education in

Wisconsin gathers post high school data for a

sample of students from one fifth of the

school districts in the state. Responding to

Perkins requirements, Wisconsin will develop a new data collection plan to be

applied on a yearly basis. The variables

include dropout rates, attendance, retention

in grade, graduation rates, number of suspensions and expulsions, percentage of

pupils in extracurricular and community

activities and advanced placement courses,

percent of graduates enrolled in

postsecondary education programs, and

percentage of graduates entering the work

force.

AMERICAN

SAMOA

(Am Samoa)

American Samoa collects information using the

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) (for grades 4, 6,

8, 10, 12) and a minimum competency test (for

grades 9-12). Both tests provide information on

reading, language arts, math, science, and social

studies. The SAT is administered annually

through a general education effort. The minimum competency test has been used since 1986;

it is ur.known when use of the SAT began. All

mainstreamed students with disabilities participate in the assessments; students who are in

self-contained classrooms do not. Both the tests

are used for local district evaluations. The SAT

is used to determine system progress and the

minimum competency test is used to determine

eligibility for graduation. Curriculum referenced tests are being developed locally in all

five major subject areas and in Samoan Language Arts.

toe

92
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Lim

West Virgima collects information on

enrollment in vocational educauon and

on the type of vocational program for

all students (no exceptions). These data

are gathered through the Department of

Vocational Education and are used to

report to both local and state education

agencies.

Attitudes and Aspirations

93
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

BUREAU OF

INDIAN AFFAIRS

(BIA)

MARIANA

ISLANDS

(CNMI)

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

(DC)

The BIA collects information using a variety of

assessments. For math, reading, language, and

'social studies, it uses subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills for students identified as

learning disabled, speech impaired, and other

health impaired in grades 1-12. Information has

been collected annually through a general

education effort for more than 10 years. Local

units report to the test publisher, who reports to

the schools and the state education agency.

Results from the academic achievement tests

are used to modify curriculum, train staff and

provide technical assistance to local schools.

Local districts may also choose to use the

educational assessments used in their state.

The CNMI uses the California Achievement Test

(CAT) to collect data on reading and math in

grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. This general education

assessment only includes students with disabilities who are not identified (e.g., students with

learning disabilities). Students with other types

of disabilities participate occasionally, when

special efforts successfully get them in the

assessment. Achievement data have been

collected every other year since 1983-1984.

Schools administer the tests and send them to

the state agency where the raw scores are

pulled from the test protocols, summarized,

and used to evaluate student progress.

Since 1989, the District of Columbia has collected data on stakeholder satisfaction with

educational and related programs. This special

education effort uses telephone interviews for

all students with disabilities (from 3-21 years),

their parents, and either an interview or questionnaire with their teachers. The state collects

the data during site compliance monitoring

visits and uses it to produce an analysis report

for program directors and assistant superintendents.

1 CI 2

94
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

1.113

1

95
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State

GUAM

PALAU

PUERTO RICO

Academic AchievIment Post-School Status--

Guam collects information on reading, mathematics, and writing. A state-developed criterion-referenced test, the Life and School Survival

Skills Test (BLSST), is given to all non-exempt

students during the odd years in elementary

school and every year during high school. The

BLSST has been administered twice per year

since 1986, through a general and special

education effort. The Briganee (pre and post) has

been given twice per year to all students in the

elementary grades since 1989. The local districts

administer both tests and send the data to the

state to be aggregated. Local schools use the

state report for instructional planning, decisionmaking for students, and program evaluation.

Palau collects data on reading, math, science,

and social studies using a criterion-referenced

test developed with WRRC assistance. All

students participate during grade 8 or when

deemed ready. Since 1980, all achievement data

have been collected annually through a general

educetion effort at identified sites. Test results

go to the Superintendent of Education and are

reported to local districts for use in high school

placement decisions.

Puerto Rico collects information using the

norm-referen led test, APRENDA, which was

developed whh the assistance of The Psychological Corporation. The reading comprehension and language (writing) subtests are given

in grades 1-12, math in grades 1-9, and basic

skills in grades K-2. The tests have been given

to all students with disabilities, if integrated,

annually since 1990. The tesft; are administered

locally and sent to the Data Center at the

Department of Education to be used for islandwide comparisons, individual student decisions, and IEP preparation and revisions.

Guam is in the process of collecting data on

living arrangements for all disability groups.

This special education effort collects information using telephone and mail interviews

one, two, and three years after graduation.

This information has been collected annually

since 1989 by the state agency to facilitate

transition planning.

Palau collects information on postsecondary

status using the Transition Team Program

case notes. This post-exit information has

been gathered continuously through a special

education tifort since 1989 for all students

who were enrolled in the transition program.

Data are used to evaluate students' status

and former programs.

104

96
State S ecial Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

Guam collects infortmt:on on employment during school years and job

placanent for all students. This information is collected through a special

education effort that uses teachers,

students, parents, employers, and

document reviews as sources of information for program evaluation.

Palau collects inforn lation on work

placement for all students enrolled in

the transition program. These data have

been collected since 1988 by the Transition Team using individual case studies

for students in grade 8 and above.

Reports are filed on students with the

SEA. The SEA tracks what happens to

students, concentrating on those who do

not attend an academic high school.

1 5

97
State Activities in Selected Outcomes Areas

State Academic Achievement Post-School Status

MARSHALL

ISLANDS

(RMI)

U.S. VIRGIN

ISLANDS

(USVI)

The RMI collects information on reading and

math using the Wide Range Achievement Test

(WRAD. Since 1972 this special education effort

has been administered twice each year (pre and

post). Students identified as learning disabled

in grades 1-8 participate. Local schools (diagnostician) report the information to the state

agency where it is reported back to the schools

and parents. Children in the special education

early childhood program (ages 3-5), are assessed using a profile checklist in the areas of

reading and math. This tesfing began in 1990

and is given annually by consultants who

report the results to the state where the information is shared with the schools and parents.

The USVI has conducted assessment, through

the general education unit, annually since the

1960s. The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT)

tests students in grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11,

including those with mild disabilities, in math,

langlage skills, reading, and general concepts.

Students with disabilities participate in the

testing if they are in mainstreamed classes. The

data are collected, analyzed, and reported by

the Test Research and Evaluation Department

staff. The state uses the information for program planning, improving teachers' skills, and

for general accountability.

106

The RMI collects information on post-school

employment. This special education effort

uses an interview to collect employment,

wages, and living arrangement data on

students identified as learning disabled and

mentally retarded. The state agency collects

the information one time per year to evaluate

the status of individual students.

98
State Special Education Outcomes 1993

Vocational Skills Functional Living Attitudes and Aspirations

The RMI collects information on selfhelp, adaptive behavior, and developmental motor skills for all students ages

3-21. Diagnosticians and teachers collect

this information through observadons

with rating scales. This special edtication effort began more than 10 years

ago and is done continuously. The

information is used for individual child

planning.

107

99